Ok, so after finally overcoming Moreland & Fleischer a few months ago, I've decided it's about time that I deepen my Latin knowledge with a composition book. So I'm doing N&H Prose Composition, but since the answer key doesn't include the preliminary exercises, which I really need for revision, I will post them here hoping anyone would help. So here goes.

Preliminary Exercise A

1. The land was ruled by a good king.Terra ab rege bonō regebātur/recta est.

2. The soldier was killed by an arrow.miles ab sagittā interficiēbātur/interfectus est.

3. The boy killed the bird with a stone.puer avem lapide interficiēbat/interfecit.

4. The Roman general was defeated by Hannibal.imperator romanus ab Hannibale superabātur/superātus est.

5. The soldier killed the peasant with a sword.miles agricolam cum gladiō interficiēbat/interfecit.

6. We have been conquered by the enemy.ab hostilibus vincebāmur/victī sumus.

7. The walls were defended by the citizens.Murī a civibus defendebantur/defensī sunt.

8. Our city was built by Romulus.Urbs ab Romulō aedificabātur/aedificata est.

9. The Romans fortified their city with a wall.Romanī urbem eōrum murō munibant/munivērunt.

10. Gaul is separated from Britain by the sea.Gallia a Britanniā mare dividitur.

11. A high wall defends the camp.murus altus castrum defendit.

12. We are loved by our friends, and we love them.Ab amicīs amāmur, eōsque amāmus.

13. We shall not be conquered by the enemy.Ab hostilibus nōn vincantur.

14. The camp is defended by a long wall.Castrum a murō longō defenditur.

18. The camp has been taken by us.Castrum a nobīs accipiēbātur/acceptum est.

19. They are teaching the boys.Puerōs docent.

20. The boys are taught by books.Puerī librīs docentur.

Thanks!

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

Note: I don't feel like cross-referencing vocabulary, so I will assume that the words you chose are valid.

1. The land was ruled by a good king.Terra ab rege bonō regebātur/recta est.

Good.

2. The soldier was killed by an arrow.miles ab sagittā interficiēbātur/interfectus est.

Scratch ab - that is only used for people.

3. The boy killed the bird with a stone.puer avem lapide interficiēbat/interfecit.

Good, except that I can't think of any time in which the simple past for this particular phrase would be translated as the imperfect.

4. The Roman general was defeated by Hannibal.imperator romanus ab Hannibale superabātur/superātus est.

Same complaint here as in 3. In 1, the imperfect is conceivable - "The land [while these things were happening] was ruled by a good king" = "The land was being ruled by a good king". But, the statements in 3 and 4 sound profoundly perfective to me. I suppose some situation could be dreamed up in which they really mean "the boy was killing" and "the Roman general was being defeated", but I can't imagine them, standing alone with their English wording, being intended as imperfect.

I won't mention this complaint again, so that I can focus on other issues.

5. The soldier killed the peasant with a sword.miles agricolam cum gladiō interficiēbat/interfecit.

Just gladio, no cum, unless there is an adjective... or something like that.

6. We have been conquered by the enemy.ab hostilibus vincebāmur/victī sumus.

Hostibus. Also, unlike my earlier complaints about the imperfect, which are debatable, the imperfect is absolutely impermissible here. "We have been" is clearly perfective.

7. The walls were defended by the citizens.Murī a civibus defendebantur/defensī sunt.

Good.

8. Our city was built by Romulus.Urbs ab Romulō aedificabātur/aedificata est.

Good.

9. The Romans fortified their city with a wall.Romanī urbem eōrum murō munibant/munivērunt.

Suam, not eorum.

10. Gaul is separated from Britain by the sea.Gallia a Britanniā mare dividitur.

Mare has an I in the ablative - mari.

11. A high wall defends the camp.murus altus castrum defendit.

Castra, -orum for "camp" - castrum just means "tent", I think.

12. We are loved by our friends, and we love them.Ab amicīs amāmur, eōsque amāmus.

Good.

13. We shall not be conquered by the enemy.Ab hostilibus nōn vincantur.

Hostibus, vincemur - you had the person and thematic vowel mistaken in the verb. Third and fourth conjugation future indicatives take -a- in the first person singular (agam), but -e- in all other persons (ages, aget, agemus, agetis, agent).

14. The camp is defended by a long wall.Castrum a murō longō defenditur.

Thanks Sceptra Tenens, this is really helpful. I think I should revise the Latin use of the perfect vs. imperfect, as it is not as in English (not to mention that I made a mistake with the English one in no.6 as well).

In 13 I actually thought that I should use the subjunctive, Craig referred to that in the other thread. Should have been more careful with the person though.

It's funny that I've actually used castra at first, and then changed it all to castrum since I thought the first was a mistake...

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

If the person who composed the English 100 years ago (or whenever) is non-English, "shall" is probably emphatic,—a command (expressible as a negative command by the perfect subjunctive with ne): Aliter, emphaticum vel jussum est,—quod negativum per tempus perfectum modo subjunctivo cum "ne" exprimatur:

Ab hostibus ne vincti simus.

Post scriptum.

OK. I just saw it was N&H (didn't I read your heading?). North and Hillard are English and 19th-century, so "I shall, you will, he will, we shall, you will, they will" for the future simple.Grammaticam adhibitam modo animadverti (titulum neglexi!). Anglici auctores, undevicesimi saeculi.

Interesting comment about the English, adrianus, thanks. for a non-native English speaker like me this modal verb might sometimes be confusing, I shall (I mean should! Just kidding) revise it.

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

That's not so far from the emphatic sense I believe I meant, Sceptra Tenens, that I don't see as very different from a commandment, "Thou shalt not", or an exhortation. It depends on your tone of voice, perhaps. And maybe I'm not right.Hoc est sensum emphaticum à me significatum, Sceptra Tenens, quod per accentum simile est jussi vel exhortationis. Forsit nugas dico.

Yes, I think it would depend in part on the tone of voice. But, at the time of "thou shalt not", I believe that "shall/shalt" was only emphatic outside of the first person, whereas "will" was the emphatic form for I/We. Of course, that only supports what you said about English authors.

... We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender ...

Wow! What a noticeable improvement in fluency, I only needed some practice to let it come more naturally again (although I'm sure I still have mistakes here).

A question about style: should imperatives come at the beginning or at the end of sentences? I assume there are different stylistic practices varying through time, authors and literally genres.

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

Cum is used for the thing you are spending time with - Romulus in caelo cum dīs agit aevom, "Romulus is spending eternity in the sky with the gods".

Give me this book.

I know you didn't write this, but it sounds odd. I don't think I'd even say that in English, except maybe if I were at Barnes & Noble holding up a book that I wanted someone to buy me for Christmas... or something... Or, perhaps, "give this book back to me when you are done with it."

I'd think istum librum if the hearer is holding the book, near it or owns it, and illum otherwise. This isn't your issue, though.

17. She and her brother have been sent home.Ea et frater suus domum missī sunt.

18. His father, the king of Italy, has sent him.Pater eius, rex Italiae, eum misit.

19. I have come to you, my own brother.Venī tuō, fratrī meō.

20. Both the men and the women are good citizens.Et virī et feminae sunt civēs bonī.

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

4. He was not killed by the enemy, was he?Num ab hostibus interfēctus est?

5. Has he lost the presents which you gave him?Perdidītne dōna, quae eī dēderās?

6. What general conquered the Teutones?Quis imperātor Teutōnēs vīcit?

7. What did you buy for your brother?Quid ēmīs fratrī tuō?

8. I have lost the book which I bought for my brother.Perdidī librum, quem fratrī meō ēmeram.

9. Whose son are you?Cuius filius es?

10. Were you not present?Nōnne aderās?

11. Surely he did not say that?Nōnne id dīxit?

12. What name is dearest to you?Quod nōmen tibi cārissimum est?

13. This is the book that I lost.Hic est liber quem perdidī.

14. What cities has he taken?Quās urbēs cēpit?

15. By whom was he killed?Ā quō interfectus est?

16. Am I not your father?Num pāter tuus sum?

17. He did not say that, did he?Nōnne id dīxit?I don't see any difference between that and no. 11.

18. She is not the woman, whose son was present.Nōn est fēmina, cuius filius aderat.

19. What city do I see?Quam urbem videō?

20. What man's house have you bought?Domum cuius virī ēmistis?

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

Amiros wrote:2. Did you, who were present, see him?Vīdīsne eum tū, quī aderās??

vīdistīne for the singluar. But, "you who were present" sounds plural to me, so vīdistisne eum vōs, quī aderātis?

4. He was not killed by the enemy, was he?Num ab hostibus interfēctus est?

The e in interfectus is of hidden quantity. There is no evidence that it was long.

5. Has he lost the presents which you gave him?Perdidītne dōna, quae eī dēderās?

Final T in a word shortens the vowel, so the I in perdidit is short. The E in dederās is short.

6. What general conquered the Teutones?Quis imperātor Teutōnēs vīcit?

Nothing wrong here, but I thought I would note that you don't *have* to use quis in this sort of sentence - quī imperātor would be fine as well. But, I think (not sure) that Cicero liked to use quis before vowels.

7. What did you buy for your brother?Quid ēmīs fratrī tuō?

ēmistī

11. Surely he did not say that?Nōnne id dīxit?

Here you want num.

EDIT - I accidentally published before finishing. The rest will be in the next post.

Thanks Sceptra Tenens and adrianus! I should pay more attention to some small details. It seems like I remembered that the 2. person endings in the perfect are istī and istis only after going through half of the exercise...

It's also funny how I studied the difference between nōnne and num, but then gave them the opposite meanings. Maybe it was because of the negation implied in the first, while it's actually used for questions expecting a positive answer. But now that I think of it, there's a similar use in Hebrew!

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

12. We have many friends, whom we do not often see.Multōs amīcōs habēmus, quōs nōn saepe vidēmus.

13. I myself will give you his sword.Ego ipse gladium eius tibi dābō.

14. We ourselves have many ships.Nōs ipsī multās nāvēs habēmus.

15. He himself gave me his own sword.Is ipse gladium ipsī mihi dēdit.(Should eius come here before ipsī?)

16. I killed him, because he wished to make himself king.Eum interfēcī, quod suum ipsum rēgem facere volēbat.(I assume ipsum is needed in the subordinate clause, although the subject of the main clause is first person and therefore suum cannot refer to it anyway.)

17. I had many friends once, but now I have few.Multōs amīcōs ōlim habēbam, sed nunc habeō paucōs.

18. I asked you for their bread.Tē/Vōs pānem eōrum/eārum rogāvī.

19. They gave us their sailors and ships.Nautās et nāvēs suās nōbīs dēdērunt.

20. We ourselves have been taught many things by him.Nōs ipsī multa ab eō doctī sunt.

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

2. He has a garden which was given him by his friend.Eī hortus, quī eī ab amīcō suō dātus est.

Hortus is the subject here, so ab amīcō suō, with the reflexive adjective, means 'by its [i.e., the garden's] own friend'. You could either alter the subordinate clause to express the possession non-reflexively or alter the main clause to make 'he' its subject.

3. He bought the house for himself and his wife.Domum suī et feminae suae ēmit.

10. He led his army against the Gauls, and took their camp.Legiōnem suum contrā Gallōs dūxit, et castra eōrum cēpit.

Exercitus is the usual word for an army.

15. He himself gave me his own sword.Is ipse gladium ipsī mihi dēdit.(Should eius come here before ipsī?)

The sword here belongs to the subject of the sentence, so the reflexive possessive adjective should be used.

16. I killed him, because he wished to make himself king.Eum interfēcī, quod suum ipsum rēgem facere volēbat.(I assume ipsum is needed in the subordinate clause, although the subject of the main clause is first person and therefore suum cannot refer to it anyway.)

I don't know about this one. What you've written doesn't look right to me, but I'm not sure if it can be corrected by just leaving out suum or not.

I'm confused. I learned Latin with M&F's intensive course, and their explanation of the direct and indirect reflexive is different. M&F (p. 237) seem to be stricter when it comes to the rules determining the part of the sentence to which a reflexive would refer, while A&G's seems to be more like a guideline.

Moreover, M&F say that the intensive pronoun is used in addition to the reflexive make it a direct one, while A&G say that it comes instead of the indirect reflexive, and only by later authors instead of the direct one.

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]

M&F, p.237, wrote:However, in subordinate subjunctive clauses and in indirect statement, the reflexive refers to the subject of the main clause and not to that of the clause in which it appears. This use is called the indirect reflexive.

N&H, p.40, wrote:Rule 7, In simple sentences "se" refers to the subject of its own clause. In Indirect Statement (Acc. with Inf.) use se with reference to the subject of the principal verb; i.e. the verb of 'saying.' 'Eum,' 'eos' must not be used for the speaker.

"eum interfeci quod is se facere volebat regem"

This is a clause inside a clause. In "is se facere volebat regem" the "se" in subclause "se facere regem" does refer to the subject of the verb of 'saying' in the subclause "is X volebat", in this case to the subject of the verb of wishing. It just so happens that here it is not the principal verb of the main clause. Nor is the "is x volebat" clause a case of indirect speech hanging off the main clause "eum interfeci".

A&G, §300.2, Note, wrote:"Sometimes the person or thing to which the reflexive refers is not the grammatical subject of the main clause, though it is in effect the subject of discourse."

"He said that he had killed him because he wished to make himself king.""Dixit se eum interfecisse quod is se facere voluisset regem." (nisi fallor)

I don't think you can avoid the ambiguity in this reported speech. Even this,"Dixit se eum interfecisse qui se facere voluisset regem",as well as the previous example, could mean "He said that he killed that man because that man wanted to make him (the killer) the king."

Latin: Trying to ge back to it. Again. (Again.)Ancient Greek: Hoping to have time to get back to that in the future...Other: Hebrew [native]; English [advanced]; German [advanced]; Palestinian Arabic [beginner]